Also the hobbits did not fly the eagles, they were carried as baggage.Exceptions to the ruleBad fantasy literature like the ancient tale of Bellerophontes who rides Pegasos?
Oh and LotR/Hobbit, to some extent? (giant eagles and stuff, for the evil ones the flying nazgul mounts)
This explains Bellerophontes too I suppose. Carried as baggage.
If fear you want to defend something that can't be defended.
Dragonlance... Valkyries... Perseus... griffon riders in warcraft... don't worry there can't be that many examples of knights on flying mounts can there?
If you really want flying mounts get GM approval. It says right in the description GMs may approve other mounts. But by default no flying mounts.
I set up an animal companions for the Drakes, Pegasus, Griffon, and Hippogriff.
Since the following is out of the Hippogriff description is just made sense that they should be a mount option for a Cavalier Beast Rider.
"Far easier to train than griffons, yet easily as intelligent as horses, hippogriffs are trained as mounts by some elite companies of mounted soldiers, patrolling the skies and swooping down on unsuspecting enemies."
Of course not every GM wants flying mounted cavaliers.
|
Of course not every GM wants flying mounted cavaliers.But flying mounted Clerics (Animal Domain), Druids, Rangers, and Paladins (Empyreal) are A-OK.
If a GM or player DOES want flying mounted cavaliers, however, might I suggest the Order of the Griffon from Advanced Options: Cavaliers' Orders, published by Super Genius Games?
|
Of course not every GM wants flying mounted cavaliers.But flying mounted Clerics (Animal Domain), Druids, Rangers, and Paladins (Empyreal) are A-OK.If a GM or player DOES want flying mounted cavaliers, however, might I suggest the Order of the Griffon from Advanced Options: Cavaliers' Orders, published by Super Genius Games?
SGG is one of the few third party companies that I feel is balanced in their products
however That doesnt help us "official pf" only players, or the PFS players
The Beastmaster Ranger Archetype allows you to take as your companion anything that a druid can grab as a companion. You'd need to be small to ride something (Giant Wasp/Roc/Dire Bat or Pteranodon) but eventually those change up to large creatures, so you could play a human who has to nurture his mount a bit before you can ride him.
The social pressure needs to be on the GM to allow for flying mounts, rather than the gloomy old "mother may I" routine of pleading for genre emulation.
Social pressure? I don't think you and I play the same game.
Sounds like what you are talking about has nothing to do with baseline core rules and instead is some way to pressure your GM to letting you do what you want to do. That's not a rule issue.
Here is an idea...run a campaign and permit it in your campaign. You don't need a rule to do that.
Clark
The social pressure needs to be on the GM to allow for flying mounts, rather than the gloomy old "mother may I" routine of pleading for genre emulation.Social pressure? I don't think you and I play the same game.
Sounds like what you are talking about has nothing to do with baseline core rules and instead is some way to pressure your GM to letting you do what you want to do. That's not a rule issue.
Here is an idea...run a campaign and permit it in your campaign. You don't need a rule to do that.
Clark
Works great -- so long as you didn't actually want to play said character.
GMPC?
The social pressure needs to be on the GM to allow for flying mounts, rather than the gloomy old "mother may I" routine of pleading for genre emulation.
Social pressure? I don't think you and I play the same game.
Sounds like what you are talking about has nothing to do with baseline core rules and instead is some way to pressure your GM to letting you do what you want to do. That's not a rule issue.
Here is an idea...run a campaign and permit it in your campaign. You don't need a rule to do that.
Clark
I had pretty much the same reaction. Didn't post when I first read his post. You're more diplomatic than me...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMPC?
Hm... that works so well...
Heck I don't see where the problem is -- we got feats to allow you to be Nightcrawler for crying out loud -- I don't think allowing a cavalier a flying mount is somehow going to ruin everything, and making it 'legit' certainly isn't any more of a problem than say firearms, or again those Nightcrawler feats.
...and making it 'legit' certainly isn't any more of a problem than say firearms, ...
I can't argue with that :)
|
Here is an idea...run a campaign and permit it in your campaign. You don't need a rule to do that.
What was that old lament? "You only get to run the game you really want to play in."? It only really leads to the joy of finally getting your character turning to ash and possibly annoying your players if you ever do much to actually enjoy your GMPC.
Mok, all I can really recommend is to talk things out with your GM, and possibly getting him to work with the boards, to find a balanced solution unless he's willing to use 3PP, in which case he needs to be pointed at Marc Radle's post ASAP. It's only because of working things out with the GM that I'm finally getting to play a concept that has yet to recieve official support in PFRPG. So long as trust runs both ways and both parties take care on the matter of balance and fairness, there should be a reasonable solution.
Also, cite flying mounted Clerics (Animal Domain), Druids, Rangers, and Paladins as precedence. :P
No no... I'm more a GM than a player. It's the principle of the matter. There ought to be, in RAW some kind of base class or archetype that explicitly aims for allowing a flying mount.
Tp break in for a moment...
Archtype? I'd say maybe a prestige class with the mount ability (which could stack with the Cavaliers class ability or other similar ones). I don't see a mount as a low level thing. A prestige class could be started when the opportunity happens in game rather than building it into "X" level of an archtype.
No no... I'm more a GM than a player. It's the principle of the matter. There ought to be, in RAW some kind of base class or archetype that explicitly aims for allowing a flying mount.
Tp break in for a moment...
Archtype? I'd say maybe a prestige class with the mount ability (which could stack with the Cavaliers class ability or other similar ones). I don't see a mount as a low level thing. A prestige class could be started when the opportunity happens in game rather than building it into "X" level of an archtype.
But again -- why does it have to be difficult?
We aren't asking for a dragon, or something gawdawful like that -- a Pegasus, giant eagle, or such would be absolutely fine. It isn't like its something that isn't currently already supported in the rules at low levels.
So why does it have to be pushed off for this specific class and made unavailable? It obviously doesn't break the game, it's not bizarre in the least, it has rule precedent already, and it's honestly not that amazing... so why have a, "cavaliers can't have nice things" position to start with?
But again -- why does it have to be difficult?
It's not.
We aren't asking for a dragon, or something gawdawful like that -- a Pegasus, giant eagle, or such would be absolutely fine. It isn't like its something that isn't currently already supported in the rules at low levels.
Just something special. What's the big deal about waiting a few levels until it can be achieved in game? Can't wait? H3ll, every class has things they have to wait for from spell levels to specific class features.
So why does it have to be pushed off for this specific class and made unavailable? It obviously doesn't break the game, it's not bizarre in the least, it has rule precedent already, and it's honestly not that amazing... so why have a, "cavaliers can't have nice things" position to start with?
Not unavailable, just not a given. Why not allow every class to do everything? And flying mounts, not bizarre? Really, everyone in game has one? You're jaded AS :) Yes, it's cool. But yes, it's special / nice. I don't mind players getting something cool. I prefer they do it in game and that it be really special. Not "oh, just another Griffon riding knight". Nothing kills that sense of wonder faster than something being mundane / commonplace.
You're jaded AS :) Yes, it's cool. But yes, it's special / nice. I don't mind players getting something cool. I prefer they do it in game and that it be really special. Not "oh, just another Griffon riding knight". Nothing kills that sense of wonder faster than something being mundane / commonplace.
Maybe -- I've had good luck with both players and GM's where it's the play/story/character that makes them special -- not the items or mounts they have. Level 4 isn't so bad don't get me wrong -- and I don't mean to step into the 'martialist can't have nice things'... especially with all the nice things UC brought to the table, it's simply this one area that martialist seem to continuously get shafted on where others (read spell casters) don't.
And I'm not asking for everyone here -- but come on -- ranger paladins and cavaliers are the three classes that this simply makes sense for -- rangers have the archetype for theirs, paladins can have their special mount with the empyreal knight archetype -- all that's left is the cavalier... lets not leave him grounded when he is the 'quintessential' mounted character.
Specific flying mounts just don't strike me as class powers. I get that the paladin gets a warhorse yada yada yada. But flying mounts are very unique, and should be the result of a specific adventure that ends in obtaining and training a special creature to be a mount. OR is the result of a specific P-class tailored to YOUR game world. It just doesn't strike me as a core or advanced class feature.
Mounts are, in the end, just really fancy equipment. These mounts already exist in the bestiary, etc. You don't need a class to ride them. You just need a willing GM, which is I think what everyone is saying.
By trying to make them a class feature, you are trying (in my opinion) to FORCE your GM to allow you to have one. That is probably why you are getting such raised eyebrows here.
There are lots of fantasy tropes that the core rules don't give you and even when they do they certainly don't give them to you at anything less than really really high level
--dragonriding (Elric, also Dragon Riders of Pern)
--runeswords that suck souls (Elric again)
--getting to be the last in line of the royal house of an epic race of heroes (Aragorn, LotR)
--being a nearly divine and nearly all powerful wizard (Gandalf, LotR)
--the most pimped out unbelievable multi-classed character of all time who can do it all in no armor and with any weapon or unarmed (Conan)
So you can't use fantasy tropes as a measure since D&D historically and Pathfinder recently simply doesn't emulate those character progressions. No one gets to be Conan, Aragorn, Gandalf, Elric, etc.
Literally, list most of your favorite fantasy characters and you cannot be him or her in D&D/Pathfinder. It's always been a strange truth that a game so inspired by fantasy literature does a horrid job recreating the experience of playing or being said characters.
Make you realize just how much more D&D/Pathfinder is like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser than you thought :) Long Live Newhon!
By trying to make them a class feature, you are trying (in my opinion) to FORCE your GM to allow you to have one. That is probably why you are getting such raised eyebrows here.
Except that -- this already exists in the rules -- again it's nothing new except for this specific class. It's already been "forced" on the GM's with druids, paladins, rangers, and heck even clerics -- so why the heck not with cavaliers.
It's nothing new to the rules it's nothing that isn't already 'forced' so the idea that I'm somehow trying to 'force' something is inane as it has already been done for 4 classes (six actually -- summoner can do it and inquisitors can too).
So again why an except for cavalier? That's the point that's not getting answered -- you can't say it's new because it isn't, you can't say it's forcing anyone anymore than the other four times it has been done -- so why not for the cavalier specifically?
I also want a Chain-Gun toting Dragon-riding Ninja Archetype. No Rogues allowed though.
GMPC?Hm... that works so well...
Well... Cool picture (after I figured how to bypass the hotlinking ban)... But how is a GMPC any different from any NPC? At least a NPC who is a recurring story element / riding along? I guess the pic is about different expectations thrown onto GMPCs vs. other NPCs vs. other PCs, but I don´t see the big difference... Since you´re GMing already, you either can hold together all the pieces to make a cohesive whole for everybody, or you can´t, and having an NPC be your latest favorite class doesn´t seem like it would change that. Then again, maybe it does for some.
I think why Paizo hasn´t made an option for Cavs yet, is that it doesn´t fit the image of Cav´s, namely noble warriors. If/when Flying mounts play a central part in a culture, it would make sense to have them for Cavs, but until then, Flying mounts aren´t going to be emblematic mounts for the noble warrior class. Cavs have a decently big social focus, and having such an extraordinary mount, they would no longer fall within the spectrum of their cultural background. Pally´s and Rangers have ties to supernatural powers, but Cavs are purely a creature of their society, so to speak. That said, the stats are there to use, so anybody can use them if they want.
I think why Paizo hasn´t made an option for Cavs yet, is that it doesn´t fit the image of Cav´s, namely noble warriors. If/when Flying mounts play a central part in a culture, it would make sense to have them for Cavs,
So cavaliers are definitely not eagle knights or sable company marines riders -- ever. Nice to know all marines are rangers. Or rather neither of those types ride mounts or are noble rather.
And all cavaliers are of course noble -- that's why any alignment is open to them.
I wasn´t under the impression that Eagle Knights rode flying mounts, and the Sable Company Marines is a Ranger Archetype. If you have Companion levels from multiple classes, they all stack, so you should be able to access all Companions you can access from any source. So, to be a Sable Company Marine, you need Ranger levels anyways, you can mix in Cavalier if you want.
AFAIK neither organization has any noble connotation, but are just military. Does Andoren even have nobility? Obviously, cultures lacking a nobility wouldn´t have the same social position corresponding to ´noble warrior class´, but I don´t see why their ´social mounted warrior type´ Class wouldn´t also gain mounts typical to their social mileu (as long as they are purely pursuing the social warrior role, rather than other Classes which open other options, like a Druid multi-class, etc).
Why would Alignment restrictions or lack of have anything to do with implied social position? How would that apply to real-world examples of nobility, such as Buddha, or Kropotkin? Not to mention the broad range of roles played by fictional noble characters... Romeo and Juliet? One will generally interact with social structures differently depending on your social caste, but that doesn´t require a fixed opinion or reaction to those structures... Otherwise the moral choice impugned to sentient beings wouldn´t exist, would it?
So anyhow, your theory would be...anything but flavor issues for Cavalier are what explains why Paizo made this situation?
If you have another take, please share, but I can´t pick anything up thru the sarcasm.
It doesn´t seem like you´re actually contesting my theory that Paizo was swayed by flavor issues here,
but are just conflating that topic with the topic of ´we want Paizo to make this mechanical option´.
I was at the impression that some of the eagle knights did actually ride eagles -- I could be wrong on that however.
Also I don't see any reason to limit a 'prestige group' like the sable marine company with a single class -- it makes little sense and flies in the face of what has been done with say the Hellknights (among others).
And honestly if it was a 'flavor issue' I point again to the paladin -- 'noble warrior' rider of exotic flying creatures.
I don't see how a 'beast rider' is going to be any more or less noble on the ground than he is on a flying mount, or how a lurker is going to be any more or less noble either for example on archetypes already included.
In fact I'm not seeing anything that suggests that cavaliers are noble in any way shape or form -- at least not any more so than say a fighter, ranger, paladin or anyone else barring possibly the barbarian.
I mean with the new lurker archetype we now have cavaliers that are nothing more than hit and run specialist, and this is continued with the musketeer -- using a weapon that most in Golarion find "dishonorable and for the weak and cowardly."
I'm not saying that a special something needs to be there for this to happen -- I'm saying a special something needs to be there for this to not happen.
To quote the very developers of pathfinder, "You should be looking for ways to tell your players yes."
or from the silver dragon thread, "The question isn't why, it is why not?"
OK, to clarify, I see Paladin as being specifically tied to ´Cosmic Lawful Goodness´ - outside of a purely socially defined role, although they do tend to inhabit social roles within their society (LG trait), their powers are based on something that has no solid rooting in social convention. So, according to my theory of why single-class Cavs don´t have Flying Mount options, Paizo may find Flying Mounts acceptable for supernatural/divine source Classes, but not for Classes with merely mundane ( /´extraordinary´) combat and social abilities. Same goes for the Mounted Barbarian variant.
The Sable Marines are written up as an Alt Class, not a PrC, so they are inherently tied to 1 class, for good or bad.
Since they´re essentially a specialized military group, and a specific group at that, I´m not surprised by the choice.
Hellknights comprise MANY groups, and different approaches, so a PrC makes more sense there.
Somebody at Paizo probably did say the quote you mention.
Paizo certainly did create the body of rules that doesn´t allow single-class Cavaliers to have flying Mounts.
I´ve just come up with the only reason I can think of why this is so. You don´t seem to have anything else.
Obviously, anybody can house-rule an easy fix, or use multi-classing to achieve what they want to.
That sounds an awful lot like alot of other issues, to be honest.
I think why Paizo hasn´t made an option for Cavs yet, is that it doesn´t fit the image of Cav´s, namely noble warriors...No, sorry. Whatever Paizo's reason is, this is NOT it.
Ultimate Combat is a setting-neutral product. It is NOT a Pathfinder Chronicles or Pathfinder Companion product.
It is not shackled to what exists in Golarion. It is a product that is specifically for all DMs and players of the Pathfinder RPG.
Limiting the abilities to only what exists in Golarion cultures is exactly the opposite of what they want to do.
HOLD ON... I THINK... I ACTUALLY NEVER MENTIONED GOLARION THERE.
(though my follow up posts explored how the Cav concept could exist in a variety of settings, i.e. not tied to a specific culture)If you have your own theory that makes more sense, please do share...
That Paizo are secret baby-eating devil worshippers who hate Classes named after Horses (enough to practically force them to ride horses) is already taken.
Specific flying mounts just don't strike me as class powers. I get that the paladin gets a warhorse yada yada yada. But flying mounts are very unique, and should be the result of a specific adventure that ends in obtaining and training a special creature to be a mount. OR is the result of a specific P-class tailored to YOUR game world. It just doesn't strike me as a core or advanced class feature.
Mounts are, in the end, just really fancy equipment. These mounts already exist in the bestiary, etc. You don't need a class to ride them. You just need a willing GM, which is I think what everyone is saying.
By trying to make them a class feature, you are trying (in my opinion) to FORCE your GM to allow you to have one. That is probably why you are getting such raised eyebrows here.
Again, as many other players have said: Read the Empyreal Knight archetype, Divine Bond entry. At level 12, YOUR MOUNT SPROUTS WINGS. Not even kidding in the slightest. You don't even have to change mounts and do the training schtick (which, btw, you do worse as a Cavalier using this archetype due to the loss of Expert Trainer). Your existing mount sprouts wings.
The Paladin has an archetype in which a flying mount IS A CLASS FEATURE. Not an option within a class feature. An actual class feature.
There are lots of fantasy tropes that the core rules don't give you and even when they do they certainly don't give them to you at anything less than really really high level
--dragonriding (Elric, also Dragon Riders of Pern)
--runeswords that suck souls (Elric again)
--getting to be the last in line of the royal house of an epic race of heroes (Aragorn, LotR)
--being a nearly divine and nearly all powerful wizard (Gandalf, LotR)
--the most pimped out unbelievable multi-classed character of all time who can do it all in no armor and with any weapon or unarmed (Conan)So you can't use fantasy tropes as a measure since D&D historically and Pathfinder recently simply doesn't emulate those character progressions. No one gets to be Conan, Aragorn, Gandalf, Elric, etc.
Literally, list most of your favorite fantasy characters and you cannot be him or her in D&D/Pathfinder. It's always been a strange truth that a game so inspired by fantasy literature does a horrid job recreating the experience of playing or being said characters.
Make you realize just how much more D&D/Pathfinder is like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser than you thought :) Long Live Newhon!
Ok you are right on dragon riders (btw what/who is the Dragon Riders of Pern?).
On runeswords that suck souls: bladebound magus, sure it takes 19 levels but hey it's there.About the last line of royal house: bastard trait for Kingmaker AP, my ranger was the last Rogarvia alive (ok Rogarvia isn't exactly a line of heroes but.....)
I don't think that the last two can be done with the current rules but we know that they exist, Tar-Baphon (i am sure i screwd the name but i can't remember it), some of the runelords etc.
|
|
Heh. Funny to see folks trot out LoTR and anything 'of Pern' as counterexamples to my 'bad fantasy tropes' remark, as those were specifically the ones I was thinking of (Bellephron I didn't foresee, but that's more classics than fantasy, ainnit? The Greeks at the time probably didn't classify it as 'fantastical' or even fictional). At the end of the day, though, it seems like Paizo, in the past, chose to play to its strengths - the APs, PFS modules, and the other serial-release adventure products that give it a steady revenue stream - and limit the availability of lots of flying PCs that break these adventures as they're designed.
More recently you see things like Gallowspire's 'ghost storm' which severely curtail the game-breaking-ness of flight (you can skip all the encounters on the climb up, but I sure hope you like eating x negative levels *every round* on the way) - so the options available in UC seem to be a little more free with the flight. That, and UC seems to be much more of a hodgepodge of internal and external (to Paizo) contributions (from freelancers and the like), so perhaps it's less in lockstep with the earlier tendency to limit flight. Or I could just be talking out my butt, but since nobody from the design team has bothered to chime in, I'm leaning towards the lack of flying mounts not being a huge worry for them.
"The gloomy old 'mother may I; routine of pleading for genre emulation" song and dance seems to be, viewed from the outside, that Paizo just doesn't want to write for the particular genre trope you want to be encouraged/propagated, for whatever their own reasons. I for one think that's a good thing and love the shift towards Howard and Lovecraft over Tolkien, but you seem to disagree - I don't know what to tell ya. You've been playing for 30-odd years, I'm sure you can throw together rules for what you want to see in your particular campaign. Other than that... you might just have to stiff upper lip it and adapt. I'm sure there were fans of that bear-dog-robot thing from the original BSG series that were disappointed it never got a reprise in the remake, but sometimes them's the breaks, yannow? That's about the only apt analogy I can think of. As a franchise evolves, sometimes ideas get discarded.
I think this was probably a mistake considering how the 4th level class feature doesn't even work. Sure you can't pick a flying mount but you can't actually ride your mount at 4th level either. Look at 4th level feature, all the mounts are medium size and don't go large till 7th level. So what's the point of having a feature 4th that you can actually use till 7th.
Could be that they don't want small size flying creature turned into large size flying creature. Basically that all the restriction against flying does. It just say you can take any animal companion that starts small but ends up medium by 7th level and you can make it large for you mount. Now I'm not sure if there is an animal companion that flys that allows that.
As well what other large flying companion could you use. Petradon is the only I see. An techinically you can't ride it as it has no mass. It's just 40 lbs of wings but very large. So I can see why they left this off the list but GM could allow it.
So in other words, your stance is that there does not exist an order of noble warriors that ride flying mounts in any campaign ever, never, since the dawn of time?
No dude, I am quite happy ASSUMING that such a group and game setting exists.
I´m still waiting for your theory to explain why Paizo made this state of affairs come to be,
even if you dislike that hypothetical reasoning, or it doesn´t optimally express your game setting of Bretonnia.
I wouldn´t be at all surprised if Paizo does eventually make a Cavalier Alt-Class within Golarion (if the flying mount-using Cavalry in question is relatively low-level), or a PrC (if it is relatively higher level, or based on a multi-class concept to qualify).
Why is it more of a problem for a cavalier to be able to ride a flying mount than a druid?
I gave my theory why. Maybe Paizo don´t even care one way or the other, they just didn´t choose to create Flying Mount Cavalier Archetypes at this point in time, as they have for Paladins and Rangers. Does anybody really think that Paizo designs their Class Abilities under the philosophy, that each and every class must equal others and be able to euqally implement whatever fantasy trope people may carry in their heads?
The name of the thread is ´WHY no flying mounts?´, i.e. the reason for that.
I gave my theory why... You chose to argue with it... If it doesn´t matter why to you, why argue?
The name of the thread is ´WHY no flying mounts?´, i.e. the reason for that.
I gave my theory why... You chose to argue with it... If it doesn´t matter why to you, why argue?
I'm going to go out on a limb with a half-assed theory:
Because there are now enough mounted things, if put together in the Cavalier, to create a fairly imbalanced combatant.
Lance + Lunge
Death from Above (Another +5 on charge attacks? Niiiiiiiiiiiice...)
Ride-by Attack
Spirited Charge
My problem: all but DfA existed in CRB, Cavalier came out in the APG. Somehow, they only realized that this could be good by the time they got to UC, when the question of flying mounts came about.
Then again, most adventures appear to happen in rooms with 10-15 foot ceilings. Oh well.
Also it's much easier when changing GMs to go "hey man I'm using this option from this book with my character is that cool?"
Than, "Hey man I'm using this houserule where I have a flying mount instead of a non-flying mount is that cool?"
If it's already in the book he can look (or possibly has looked) and can go, "Yeah man that's fine." or "No man we aren't using that option because it doesn't fit into the campaign world -- it's more reality grounded less high fantasy."
Instead of him having to stop, look over the houserule from someone else's table, see where it goes, try to understand something that might not even be written down figure out the balance... it's just so much more of a headache for him he's liable to say, "No." Simply to not have to deal with it rather than because it doesn't fit his campaign or because he doesn't like it.